Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Docs Builder Issues

This seems like a reasonable approach. +1 Dana Walker Associate Software Engineer Red Hat On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 4:35 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > To have docs to align with the 4 phases of development we would have 4 > release streams: 'nightly

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Docs Builder Issues

To have docs to align with the 4 phases of development we would have 4 release streams: 'nightly', 'beta', 'rc', and 'stable'. The url structure of the site would be something like: docs.pulpproject.org/en/{x.y}/{beta | nightly | rc}/{tag}/ The {beta | nightly | rc} is literally 'beta' if beta, '

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Docs Builder Issues

+1 to moving to Travis. This fits in with the push-to-PyPI stuff I think. What does the 'beta' come from in the URL and what would the URLs for say a tag like 3.0.1 look like? David On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 8:29 AM, Dennis Kliban wrote: > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Brian Bouterse > wrote

Re: [Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Docs Builder Issues

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 1:37 PM, Brian Bouterse wrote: > We have several problems w/ the Pulp3 docs currently, in decreasing order > of severity. > > 1. We don't have docs per beta, we only have nightly docs [0]. This is a > problem because during the beta cycle, when we make a backwards > incompa

[Pulp-dev] Pulp3 Docs Builder Issues

We have several problems w/ the Pulp3 docs currently, in decreasing order of severity. 1. We don't have docs per beta, we only have nightly docs [0]. This is a problem because during the beta cycle, when we make a backwards incompatible change in core's documentation, e.g. merging RQ work, plugins